5 ms·

It's amusing to consider the common wisdom that restaurants are a tough, low margin business yet make up so many of the eldest companies. Even if you exceed so

It's amusing to consider the common wisdom that restaurants are a tough, low margin business yet make up so many of the eldest companies. Even if you exceed some threshold to make it to maturity, you'd think the statistics on survival would catch up with you eventually.

blakesterz 7y ago
It seems like restaurants/bars make it to a certain age where they become part of the fabric of a city/town. They turn into those places where "you just gotta go once or twice a year" and anytime someone comes in from out of town you take them or tell them to go. If I had to guess it's around 25 years. If my parents took me there when I was a kid, the restaurant makes it on that list. If my grandparents took my parents there, so much the better.
- ghaff 7y ago
  Such restaurants still usually end up going out of business. For example, a lot of the fried seafood warhorses in Boston are gone at this point. Still, if you talk about entire countries, there are often going to be some institutions that have at least some sort of vague claim to continuous operation/ownership.
  - subpixel 7y ago
    I wonder if that correlates to the local and affordable seafood also having disappeared. There's a limit to the number of customers you can attract with calamari and other things formerly considered bait.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      Possibly. Certainly any traditional deep-fried seafood platter is no cheaper than it was. But tastes have also changed. Although I'm sure they had other things, the traditional Boston seafood restaurants tended to be built around a lot of deep-fried fish (or boiled lobster). There's also been a lot of development in the area where most of them were. Legal's is certainly still around with a generally less heavy hand in terms of prep. And, in general, there are tons of newer seafood restaurants that are mostly in a somewhat different vein than the traditional ones.
- MisterBastahrd 7y ago
  There's another reason for this, too: most of the restaurants that are long-lived are on land that is owned by the restaurant and has been for some time. It is incredibly expensive to operate a restaurant AND pay rent to someone, especially city prices. It's not as bad when you're just paying maintenance costs and property taxes.
odyssey7 7y ago
A necessary condition for this ranking is that the business' offering was valued from the time it started to the present. Good food and a nice experience is apparently a timeless product category -- although that's far from a sufficient condition to have a long-running and profitable business.
throwaway87lcg6 7y ago
I imagine there's some advantage to fully owning the land the establishment sits on. It's probably much easier to outlast the local competition when a lease isn't eating your margins.
ksec 7y ago
>Restaurants are a tough, low margin business That is only common today when you have high rent. Most of the older business tends own the property ( Like early days McDonald ) and it will remain a competitive advantage. That is of coz assuming your food is good enough.
- ldng 7y ago
  But those companies have been bought and resold over time and even possibly moved. Which probably imply mortgage on some buyers. Not sure land owning is such a big deal.
  - ksec 7y ago
    It depends if it was sold with the property or not. Rent is anywhere between 20-35% of your running cost depending on region. And you tend to get higher quality food in places where Rent isn't ridiculously high as restaurant can afford to move those cost to the plate.
    - ldng 7y ago
      Maybe I misunderstand you then, to me you made it sound that was a given. Those companies have undoubtly different history and, to me, rent is a relatively recent issue and over hundreds of years it might not be a factor. I pretty sure national mints have been moving around for instance. They are not location dependant. That said, I might be wrong, it would made an interesting study to try to acertain what are the common factor to those companies. If any.
dredmorbius 7y ago
That thought had occurred to me. But also: Chip fabs and aircraft manufacturing plants were uncommon circa 10th century. Of any given establishment, odds were good it had something to do with food or hospitality. Survivorship bias, as foodservice is a viable business now as then. Other options: carpentry (highly skills dependent), blacksmithing, textiles. After 1436, printers. Possibly general merchants. Lists of preindustrial / early industrial occupations are interesting, see: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3832wx/occupation_classifications_growth_and_change_over/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3832wx/occupat... (19th - 21st centuries) Several are also listed, with wages/salaries, here: http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html (mediaeval England price list)
reaperducer 7y ago
As long as human beings eat, you have potential customers. I think that helps.
empath75 7y ago
On the other hand, it’s a business that never becomes obsolete.

blakesterz 7y ago

It seems like restaurants/bars make it to a certain age where they become part of the fabric of a city/town. They turn into those places where "you just gotta go once or twice a year" and anytime someone comes in from out of town you take them or tell them to go. If I had to guess it's around 25 years. If my parents took me there when I was a kid, the restaurant makes it on that list. If my grandparents took my parents there, so much the better.

ghaff 7y ago
Such restaurants still usually end up going out of business. For example, a lot of the fried seafood warhorses in Boston are gone at this point. Still, if you talk about entire countries, there are often going to be some institutions that have at least some sort of vague claim to continuous operation/ownership.
- subpixel 7y ago
  I wonder if that correlates to the local and affordable seafood also having disappeared. There's a limit to the number of customers you can attract with calamari and other things formerly considered bait.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    Possibly. Certainly any traditional deep-fried seafood platter is no cheaper than it was. But tastes have also changed. Although I'm sure they had other things, the traditional Boston seafood restaurants tended to be built around a lot of deep-fried fish (or boiled lobster). There's also been a lot of development in the area where most of them were. Legal's is certainly still around with a generally less heavy hand in terms of prep. And, in general, there are tons of newer seafood restaurants that are mostly in a somewhat different vein than the traditional ones.
MisterBastahrd 7y ago
There's another reason for this, too: most of the restaurants that are long-lived are on land that is owned by the restaurant and has been for some time. It is incredibly expensive to operate a restaurant AND pay rent to someone, especially city prices. It's not as bad when you're just paying maintenance costs and property taxes.

odyssey7 7y ago

A necessary condition for this ranking is that the business' offering was valued from the time it started to the present. Good food and a nice experience is apparently a timeless product category -- although that's far from a sufficient condition to have a long-running and profitable business.

throwaway87lcg6 7y ago

I imagine there's some advantage to fully owning the land the establishment sits on. It's probably much easier to outlast the local competition when a lease isn't eating your margins.

ksec 7y ago

>Restaurants are a tough, low margin business That is only common today when you have high rent. Most of the older business tends own the property ( Like early days McDonald ) and it will remain a competitive advantage. That is of coz assuming your food is good enough.

ldng 7y ago
But those companies have been bought and resold over time and even possibly moved. Which probably imply mortgage on some buyers. Not sure land owning is such a big deal.
- ksec 7y ago
  It depends if it was sold with the property or not. Rent is anywhere between 20-35% of your running cost depending on region. And you tend to get higher quality food in places where Rent isn't ridiculously high as restaurant can afford to move those cost to the plate.
  - ldng 7y ago
    Maybe I misunderstand you then, to me you made it sound that was a given. Those companies have undoubtly different history and, to me, rent is a relatively recent issue and over hundreds of years it might not be a factor. I pretty sure national mints have been moving around for instance. They are not location dependant. That said, I might be wrong, it would made an interesting study to try to acertain what are the common factor to those companies. If any.

dredmorbius 7y ago

That thought had occurred to me. But also: Chip fabs and aircraft manufacturing plants were uncommon circa 10th century. Of any given establishment, odds were good it had something to do with food or hospitality. Survivorship bias, as foodservice is a viable business now as then. Other options: carpentry (highly skills dependent), blacksmithing, textiles. After 1436, printers. Possibly general merchants. Lists of preindustrial / early industrial occupations are interesting, see: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3832wx/occupation_classifications_growth_and_change_over/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3832wx/occupat... (19th - 21st centuries) Several are also listed, with wages/salaries, here: http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html (mediaeval England price list)

reaperducer 7y ago

As long as human beings eat, you have potential customers. I think that helps.

empath75 7y ago

On the other hand, it’s a business that never becomes obsolete.